R v Okeke - [2022] QDC 59

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Okeke [2022] QDC 59

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

ANTHONY ONYEKA OKEKE

FILE NO:

396/21

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Trial – Judge-Alone

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

20 June 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Ipswich

HEARING DATES:

31 January 2022 to 4 February 2022

JUDGE:

Lynch QC DCJ

VERDICTS:

Count 1 Fraud to the value of $30,000 but less than $100,000: Guilty.

Count 2 Attempted fraud: Guilty.

Count 3 Attempted fraud: Guilty.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – OTHER FRAUDS AND IMPOSITIONS – FRAUD – VERDICT – trial by judge sitting without a jury – where the defendant is charged with one count of fraud to the value of $30,000 but less than $100,000 and two counts of attempted fraud – where the defendant is alleged to have dishonestly taken out insurance policies in his own and other persons’ names – where the defendant is alleged to have failed to disclosure details regarding his accident and claims history – where the defendant is alleged to have dishonestly induced and attempted to induce payment of motor vehicle insurance claims – where the evidence is circumstantial – where evidence of uncharged similar acts demonstrating a dishonest system or scheme alleged – whether similarity of uncharged conduct demonstrates defendant’s involvement in dishonest scheme – whether defendant identified as responsible for making subject insurance claims – whether the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary honest people – whether dishonesty relied upon induced or was capable of inducing payment of claims – whether it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) ss 1, 4, 408C, 535, 615B, 615C, 644

CASES:

Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461

Sutton v The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528

COUNSEL:
H McIntyre for the Crown

S Neaves for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Crown

Hans Legal for the Defendant

Proceedings

Anthony Onyeka Okeke is charged before the District Court of Queensland at Ipswich on indictment number 396 of 2021 with the following offences:
Count 1:That on divers dates between the 2nd day of February, 2017 and the 20th day of February, 2019 at Ipswich or elsewhere in the State of Queensland, Anthony Onyeka Okeke dishonestly induced different persons to deliver property to him or any person. And the property was of the value of at least $30,000 but less than $100,000.
Count 2:That on the 18th day of December, 2018 at Ipswich or elsewhere in the State of Queensland, Anthony Onyeka Okeke attempted to dishonestly induce QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited to deliver property to him or any person.
Count 3:That on divers dates between the 11th day of January, 2017 and the 7th day of November, 2017 at Ipswich or elsewhere in the State of Queensland, Anthony Onyeka Okeke attempted to dishonestly induce different persons to deliver property to him or any person.
When arraigned on…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Okeke

Details

AGLC: R v Okeke [2022] QDC 59
Case: [2022] QDC 59
Decision Date: 20 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Okeke, the defendant was charged with one count of fraud to the value of $30,000 but less than $100,000 and two counts of attempted fraud. The defendant was alleged to have dishonestly taken out insurance policies in his own and other persons' names, failed to disclose details regarding his accident and claims history, and dishonestly induced and attempted to induce payment of motor vehicle insurance claims. The case was heard by a judge sitting without a jury in the relevant court.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the similarity of uncharged conduct demonstrated the defendant's involvement in a dishonest scheme, whether the defendant was identified as responsible for making the subject insurance claims, whether the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary honest people, and whether the dishonesty relied upon induced or was capable of inducing payment of claims. The court also had to determine whether it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the charges.

In its reasoning, the court examined the evidence presented, which was largely circumstantial. It considered the registration history of a vehicle and the registration application form, as well as the testimonies of various witnesses, including a public servant and a police officer. The court also evaluated the evidence of an insurance advisor, who described the process of creating insurance policies and the importance of disclosure by prospective customers. The court concluded that the evidence did not establish the defendant's involvement in a dishonest scheme, nor did it prove that the defendant's conduct was dishonest or induced the payment of claims. The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court acquitted the defendant of all charges. The final orders were for the defendant to be discharged without conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Exhibit 14: Registration history for vehicle 607-YBX 2011 model Holden Captiva; registered to Uchenna Ugochukwu Ottih, 51 Colorado Drive, Springfield Lakes, on 9/5/2018; registration transferred to Pickles Auctions P/L on 30/5/2018. Exhibit 15: Registration application form for vehicle 607-YBX Dated: 9/5/2018; Registered operator: Uchenna Ugochukwu Ottih; Home/Business, Postal & Garage address: 51 Colorado Drive, Springfield Lakes; Authorised person: Anthony Okeke. Attached Safety Certificate lists “Mobile AIS location: 27 Kinglake Avenue, Springfield Lakes”.2. Lisa Telford The evidence of Ms Telford was taken via audio visual link. Ms Telford is a public servant employed in the Commonwealth Department of Home Affairs and had worked in the Movement Records and Passenger Card Team, dealing with Departmental records of movements of all persons into and out of Australia. Ms Telford said these records were contained within an electronic database and on microfilm and microfiche. Ms Telford said she received a request from Queensland Police to search for any records of entry and exit by named individuals. The names she searched included: Femi John Olafenwa DOB 16/4/1982; Olisa Lawrence Mbamalu DOB 11/1/1989; Isaac Ogechukwu Anaetoh DOB 30/3/1985; Uchenna Ogechukwu Ottih DOB 27/11/1982; Chakwuma Christopher Equillam DOB 9/3/1982; Ifeanyi Emmanuel Aniakor DOB 19/12/1982. With the exception of the person Equillam (whom Ms Telford was not asked about), Ms Telford said she found no record of the named individuals entering or exiting Australia. Ms Telford said a search of Departmental records revealed visitor visa requests for the persons Aniakor, Olafenwa and Mbamalu were refused in 2016. Ms Telford said apart from the details of the individuals, she was given copies of the bio page of passports in the relevant names. Ms Telford said her searches of the relevant databases did not reveal any names which she considered sufficiently similar to report upon.3. Damian George Craig The evidence of Mr Craig was taken via audio visual link. Mr Craig is a Senior Constable in the Queensland Police Service. He said on 18 December 2016 he was called to attend a traffic crash at Grande Avenue, Springfield Lakes. Mr Craig said the collision involved a vehicle colliding with the rear of another which was parked on Grande Avenue. He said he spoke with “the defendant in this matter Mr Okeke”[2] at the scene who was the driver of the vehicle that collided with the parked car. He said Mr Okeke did not appear physically injured but an ambulance was in attendance. He said this was the first time he ever dealt with Mr Okeke. He said his investigations revealed that both vehicles involved in the collision were registered to Mr Okeke. He said this attendance was at night, the weather was clear and dry, and the street was very well lit.4. Jason Lee Whyte[2] Transcript Craig 1-49 at lines 6-7. Mr Whyte is a senior investigation advisor at Suncorp, involved in the investigation of insurance claims. Mr Whyte said Suncorp provided insurance under a number of business names including Suncorp, AAMI and Shannons. Mr Whyte had access to and familiarity with Suncorp’s computer records and systems. Mr Whyte described the way in which Suncorp insurance policies are created. This usually involved a customer making phone contact with a consultant and required the customer to provide information about the insured item and the insured person which Suncorp trusted as accurate. Mr Whyte said the consultant asked scripted questions in order to initiate the insurance. At the conclusion, a policy number was generated which stayed with the customer for the life of the policy and a certificate of insurance was issued to the customer. Mr Whyte also described that a customer could complete their application online by answering formatted questions. Applications via phone were recorded and the online application recorded the customers answers to the questions. Mr Whyte said disclosure by prospective customers when answering questions was important to Suncorp’s determination of whether, and on what terms, insurance would be provided because circumstances affected the risk involved; e.g. accident history or criminal history or licence suspensions. Mr Whyte also described that the progression of insurance claims was recorded and documented in the Suncorp computer system which also had the capacity to upload documents saved as PDF files.

CITATION:	R v Okeke [2022] QDC 59
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v ANTHONY ONYEKA OKEKE
FILE NO:	396/21
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Trial – Judge-Alone
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	20 June 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Ipswich
HEARING DATES:	31 January 2022 to 4 February 2022
JUDGE:	Lynch QC DCJ
VERDICTS:	Count 1 Fraud to the value of $30,000 but less than $100,000: Guilty. Count 2 Attempted fraud: Guilty. Count 3 Attempted fraud: Guilty.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – OTHER FRAUDS AND IMPOSITIONS – FRAUD – VERDICT – trial by judge sitting without a jury – where the defendant is charged with one count of fraud to the value of $30,000 but less than $100,000 and two counts of attempted fraud – where the defendant is alleged to have dishonestly taken out insurance policies in his own and other persons’ names – where the defendant is alleged to have failed to disclosure details regarding his accident and claims history – where the defendant is alleged to have dishonestly induced and attempted to induce payment of motor vehicle insurance claims – where the evidence is circumstantial – where evidence of uncharged similar acts demonstrating a dishonest system or scheme alleged – whether similarity of uncharged conduct demonstrates defendant’s involvement in dishonest scheme – whether defendant identified as responsible for making subject insurance claims – whether the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary honest people – whether dishonesty relied upon induced or was capable of inducing payment of claims – whether it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) ss 1, 4, 408C, 535, 615B, 615C, 644
CASES:	Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461 Sutton v The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528
COUNSEL:	H McIntyre for the Crown S Neaves for the Defendant
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Crown Hans Legal for the Defendant